Is it wrong to be a cannibal?

The Chilean incident was made into a book when I was young, it was a fascinating read.

I believe that the simple logic of survival would have lead to taboos. You could probably get away with incest for a while, but over a longer term, it will likely produce birth defects, some of which would be debilitating. In the longest term, one might cynically argue that defects would be bred out of the population, but that involves a rather simplistic view of how genetic factors cause and control innate "disease" conditions.

But i suspect that among the ancestors of the Europeans, the Persians and the Hindus (almost all of whom arose in central Asia just after the last ice age), the equation was much starker. There would be a certain lower limit of the number of healthy adults and children capable of labor (such as gathering, or helping to butcher hunted animals, or helping to cut up meat and dry it) which could be expected to survive in the "take no prisoners" environment of the periglacial steppes. Below that number, there would be insufficient labor resources available to hunt and gather the food which would need to be stored over the winter, as well as fuel (wood or bone to be burned), to assure survival. If incestuous practices were producing basically "useless" mouths, even exposing infants at birth because of obvious birth defects would not solve the problem, as the labor lost when an adult dies needs to be routinely replaced by new children. I suppose that over time, a group which habitually practiced incest would fall below the line in the equation at which the number of healthy individuals who can contribute labor are insufficient to produce all of the resources needed to survive the winter. In a case such as that, groups which practiced incest would probably just die out. It possible, then, that other groups might know of the failure of groups which allowed incest, and develop a taboo against it.

I believe that it is likely that most, perhaps even almost all groups of humans practiced the exposure of infants born with obvious defects. Nevertheless, several years ago, a paleolithic burial was found in the mountains of Italy of an adult woman, probably in her thirties, with a boy in adolescence, and the boy was crippled. So in that group, at least, the resources of the group were sufficient to support a child who had little prospect of making a meaningful contribution to group survival. Of course, basket weaving, flint knapping, the curing of hides and the making of garments could define a meaningful contribution, and a child who was crippled, but able to learn and practice a useful skill was not necessarily a useless mouth to be fed. Past a certain age, adults who were seriously injured, or debilitated by disease, probably faced death, and they might be exposed as well. A successful group could feed many mouths, but the mouths fed must be of individuals who were able to make a useful contribution to the group's survival.

The equation on the periglacial steppes was pretty harsh, and pretty abrupt. Below a certain limit, there would be insufficient labor available to produce the resources needed for the survival of the group through the winter to the next spring. But beyond that limit, a group could be relatively wealthy, in terms of the technology of those cultures. The upper limit of a viable group would be defined by the carrying capacity of the resources in the region in which the group hunted and gathered. A consistently successful group would be obliged at some point to divide, with a sufficiently large number of adults and healthy children going off to find another area in which to live. I would imagine that most taboos arise out of many generations of collected knowledge which told people, or at least suggested to their probably superstitious imaginations, that this or that practice represented a real and proximate threat to group survival.

As for killing one's offspring, i don't think that is that common "in the wild," if by that you mean among animals. Nature takes care of that, to the extent that among many species, newborns have to be prepared to stand up and move with the group shortly after birth--as in hours after birth. The offspring of horses and cattle and cervine species (i.e., various types of deer) have to be able to stand and follow their mothers within a day or two of birth. Any who could not would likely fall prey to predators. I only know of the killing of offspring in cases such as with wild canids (dogs, wolves, etc.), where only the alpha female is allowed to reproduce, and any female other than the alpha female who whelps is likely to see her offspring killed, or will be obliged to strike out on her own in the attempt to establish a new pack.

But, the Brits have been screwing cousins since the beginning of time---and the worst thing to happen is hemophilia, beady eyes, really bad teeth and Camilla Parker-Bowles.

The Catholic Church prohibited marriage of cousins within a certain "degree," and i believe the upper limit was the "fifth" degree, which would be fifth cousins "unremoved," or closer cousins, but at a remove. This did not, however, necessarily apply to those with sufficient political influence or money to wave under the Pope's nose. Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122-1204) is an excellent example. Her father died on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compestela when she was just 15, and her father wrote a will shortly before dying (it was probably food poisoning, which left him plenty of time to suffer terrible agony, and dictate and sign a new will). That will specified that Eleanor would inherit (making her the richest eligible woman in Europe, and arguably the richest person in Europe at that time), and named Louis the Fat of France her guardian. Louis took his duties seriously--it is reported that he was so overjoyed to learn of the death of Duke Guillaume of Aquitaine (a true thorn in his side, and much more wealthy and powerful) that he stammered so badly he could not be understood, and had to write out his instructions. He got a papal dispensation, and married Eleanor off to his son, and then had the decency to vacate the scene, dying a few months later.

The reason that Eleanor and Louis needed a dispensation to marry was because they were cousins in the fourth degree (third cousins once removed). The marriage was a failure. The French were shocked by Eleanor's behavior, and when Louis defied the Pope a few years later, her reputation had been so besmirched by the puritanical French (yes, i just described the French as puritanical), that the Pope blamed Eleanor, and described Louis as a child who needed to be taught manners. Eleanor joined Louis on a disastrous crusade (she actually started the crusade), in which Louis proved his unsuitability as a leader more clearly than he previously had done. By the end of the crusade, they King and Eleanor were no longer on speaking terms. Attempts by the Pope to reconcile them failed, and the marriage was then finally annulled by the Pope on grounds of consanguinity.

Then Eleanor (who was the object of several kidnapping attempts because of her great wealth) begged Duke Henry of Normandy, also Duke of Anjou, to marry her. He agreed, despite the warning of his father, who is alleged to have been Eleanor's lover--she was 11 years old. She was also more closely related to Henry than she had been to Louis. They were third half-cousins on the female side, and were both descended as second cousins once removed from a Duke of Normandy. Henry was getting ready to become the King of England though, and there's nothing like wealth and power to assure that you get what you want.

********************************************

The Protestants, though, were even worse. King James VI of Scotland (the homosexual king who commission a translation of the bible which has become known as the King James Version) became King James I when Elizabeth I died in 1603. Despite his sexual proclivities, he produced four children, the third of which lived long enough to succeed him as King Charles I. Charles had several children by his wife, Henrietta Maria of France (daughter of King Henri IV and Marie de Medici) including two Kings, Charles II and James II, and the "Princess Royal," Mary.

That "Princess Royal," Mary, was married off to the Prince of Orange, William II. They had a son, who became William III, Prince of Orange. He also became William III, King of England. That was easily done. The second son of King Charles I, and brother of King Charles II, had a daughter, whom he named Mary, who was married to her first cousin, William III of Orange. When Charles II died, he was succeeded by James, who became King James II. He was about as pig-headed as any King who ever sat the English throne, which is saying quite a lot, and he was a Catholic, who intended to make England Catholic once more. As one might imagine, he didn't last long. He became King in 1685, and in 1688, his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William III of Orange (who was also his nephew) landed in southern England with a Dutch Army. James had to get out of Dodge.

Some people have claimed that William III of Orange and England was a homosexual. I don't think most historians think the charge is substantiated. Whether or not that is true, he and Mary had no children. Mary Stuart endowed the college in Williamsburg, Virginia, which bears their names--William and Mary.

I'm not sure whether you can see this, but that first statement sounds ridiculous. Firstly, it immediately brings to mind the millions of vegetarians on the planet, and how for them, values very much go along side with eating meat. Secondly, you have oversimplified. A human body is not simply meat - it is someone's sister, someone's brother, someone's father, someone's mother, someone's son, someone's daughter, someone's lover, someone's friend.

And I think you're missing the point. EVEN IF I thought with all conviction that cannibalism is perfectly fine, I wouldn't do it, because I respect other people. I respect the values and beliefs of other people. Life does not revolve around you, my friend. There are 6 billion, 7 hundred and 7 million other people on this planet.

aperson

Weren't cloistered tribes thousands of years ago all related one way or another?

If I wanted to address his argument I'd join his ridiculous thread.

I live every day with a child who was traumatized by the "adults" in his life only a fraction of a degree to those poor kids who are sexually exploited. I know the stuggles kids face.

That asshat argote doesn't give a damn about anyone but his dick.

So I started my own thread and I'm actually learning some interesting stuff. If you want to argue with argote please do. If you want to participate in my parody thread that has actually turned interesting you are most welcome to do so. But please don't confuse me with argote.

It's not so much that you have to address agrote's argument, it's that you should at least try to understand your own argument. But if you don't want to do that, then it's no skin off my nose.

Okay, then. We're cool!

The arguments are similar, and they seem to be fairly successful. What is wrong with eating dead human flesh, exactly? I suppose in some cases you would be eating police evidence. But then that's a disanalogy with child porn, because you inform the police of the address at which you discover the child porn, without refraining from using it to arouse yourself.

Are there any other problems with eating (in private) humans who have died of natural causes? As someone else pointed out, if we don't have souls then there really isn't much to complain about. Cannibalism ain't so bad.

This is a good argument, but it overlooks a couple of things. Yes, people who feel inclined to give away free body parts or child porn probably do so because they want to. Perhaps they get a kick out of sharing. But they can make their offer of free stuff without that offer being received. They may set up a website offering free illegal goods to whoever wants to receive them, and they may do so because the mere act of making the offer pleases them. But if it is the act of offering gifts to people (rather than the event of those gifts being received) which pleases the body part or child porn distributor, then the people who receive the gifts will not be responsible for their production.

If the child abuser is going to make child porn and put it up on the internet, regardless of whether anyone actually looks at it... then looking at it won't make a difference. It won't encourage the child abuser to make more pictures, because he is already motivated to do so; by the strange joy he gets from posting them on the internet. Unless the child abuser gets a kick out of somebody masturbating over the porn he produces (which seems unlikely), the act of masturbating over the porn will not have the consequence of encouraging anybody to abuse children.

Another thing you've overlooked is that the distributer of body parts literally gives physical objects to people. Posting child porn on a website isn't like this. It's more like pinning photographs to a public noticeboard. A child abuser who gets a kick out of posting photos on a noticeboard is going to get a kick out of it no matter how many people look at the photos. The act of looking at the photos will not give the child abuser any additional motivation to abuse children. If he is already motivated by the joy of making his photos public (and the pleasure he gets from abusing children), no amount of reduction in the number of people who click the link to his website is going discourage him.

Looking at unsponsored, free images of child porn on a website does not encourage child abuse.

Older children (12/13) are often capable of becoming pregnant, or (if they are male) of impregnating someone. This is why in my older thread on paedophilia I made a distinction between paedophilia and hebephilia (the latter being an attraction to pubescent rather than pre-pubescent children). This distinction would probably overcomplicate the child porn thread, but it's an important distinction to bear in mind.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that sex between 'adult' animals and what we might metaphorically call 'pubescent' animals (animals only just old enough to be fertile), is fairly widespread, at least among some species. It seems that sexual attraction to fertile pubescent children would have quite an obvious evolutionary benefit. That doesn't make it morally acceptable, of course. But it does suggest that it isn't quite as weird as people assume (or as weird as fully-fledged paedophilia, which can never produce children).



Dolphins do, or so I heard.

What's your evidence for this? Maybe I just care about the truth, and I happen to disagree with you about the truth about whether it is wrong to view child porn.

Maybe you're not bothering to address my arguments because you don't know how to.

Please bear in mind that we both agree that child abuse is unacceptable and should be stopped. If I was advocating the use of newspaper photographs of war casualties as pornography, I don't think you'd accuse me of being in favour of creating war casualties and photographing them.

I am against abuse. Unfortunately, abuse happens. People take pictures of the abuse that happens. It is possible for paedophiles to use these pictures to arouse themselves, without causing any extra harm to children, and without giving child abusers any extra motivation to harm children. It may not seem like a pleasant thing to do, but it is a harmless thing to do, and that is why I think it should be allowed. Adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to, in private, so long as it doesn't harm anybody.

If I wanted to discuss child pornography with you I'd join your thread and discuss child pornography with you.

I don't care about your arguements, your rationalizations and your justifications.

Obvioulsy I can't prevent you from posting on my thread but please don't expect me to discuss child pornography with you here.

Agrote--

It is quite simple to me--I can't speak for others.

A patron of child pornography is what drives child porn. People abuse children because there is a market for it. I personally consider patrons to be almost as guilty as those who photograph and sexually abuse children victimized by child porn.

Ok, perhaps I should I said religious and/or moral.

And if a vegetarian was starving with nothing to eat but meat, my guess is that they'd eat the meat.

Why would you say I don't value your or any one elses values or opinions? When someone is dead, they are dead. Their values in life don't mean anything anymore.

The body is a shell. Not the person you respect. What you respect is the soul or the spirit. Not the body.

No matter how much you try to reason, and by the way I am not disagreeing with your logic, I still have respect for other people's values. And I'm just talking about the dead person, though I respect them too, I am talking about their family and friends, and other people in general. Period. I'm trying to get it through to you that for once, it's not about logic. It's about respect for your fellow human beings. Period.

patron

• noun 1 a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, etc. 2 a regular customer of a restaurant, hotel, etc.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/patron?view=uk



I agree with all of that. I'm not defending patrons of child porn.

I'm defending people who look at websites featuring child porn, who do not supply money or trade in order to gain access to such websites, and who make no contact with the people supplying the child porn (i.e. they don't send emails saying "this is great! please make some more!").

If all these people are doing is clicking links to free websites, then as far as the website owners are concerned, all that is happening is that the number of 'hits' is going up. A little number at the bottom of the webpage increases. As far as I'm aware, that's all that happens. That is the only noticable consequence of the paedophile's actions. It's not nothing, but it surely isn't sufficient to motivate somebody to risk imprisonment or vigilante attack by raping a child. If the child abuser is going to abuse children, he will do so regardless of how many 'hits' he gets on his free child porn website.

You're right to say that patrons of child porn drive the child porn market. But I'm not talking about any child porn market; I'm talking about freely accessible websites featuring child porn. Whatever drives people to abuse children, it is not the fact that some paedophiles click links to freely accessible websites.

Agrote, why do you feel the need to continue being over the top obnoxious?

I am rather curious...

Sorry, In my last post I meant "And I'm not just..."